To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[Ehud]

Thank you for the response! If you don't mind sticking with me, I have a few follow-up questions for you.

Originally Posted by n david

Scenario:
A born again, baptized in Jesus Name and filled with the HG, bearded man desires to be used in church ministry. He has no personal conviction against facial hair and sees nothing in scripture which prohibit such. In fact, a review of Pentecostal history favors facial hair. So he goes to the Pastor with his desire to be used. The Pastor tells him he would love to let him minister on the platform, with just one condition: the man needs to shave his beard.

I'm with ya here. This is the exact type of situation I had in mind.

Originally Posted by n david

The man asks the Pastor for scripture and explanation and the Pastor says, I don't have Bible for it, it's just my preference. The man leaves the meeting discouraged and disappointed, but continues to attend church.

In making his preference and the rule known, do you believe the pastor has done anything to be held accountable for? If the member turns from God at this point, do you believe the pastor will be held accountable. It's hard to imagine the man was ready for ministry if such an innocuous statement of fact would cause his demise, right? (This is actually as far as my original question was intended to go, but since you provided much more detail, I'll roll with it.)

Originally Posted by n david

The Pastor meets again with the man and asks why the man hasn't shaved. The man explains that since there is no scripture against facial hair and the man has no conviction against it, he will keep it. The Pastor then tells the man he is in rebellion. The man leaves even more discourage and even upset over being accused of rebellion.

I would ask why the pastor went to meet with him again. In this part of the scenario, it would seem that the pastor has already overstepped a mere "enforcing of rules," and ventured over into meddling. I would be very interested to hear a pastor's rationale for claiming the man is in rebellion if the man simply declined to shave and wasn't pursuing any further ministry role.

Originally Posted by n david

After the meetings, the Pastor preached a message on standards and strongly pointed out that those who don't follow the standards set by the church are in rebellion against God.

The man is crushed and leaves that church.

You will get no argument out of me that the pastor very well shouldn't have done this, but what is there to be held accountable for? At worst, shouldn't the man simply think the pastor is a wacko? What is it about this part of the scenario that would cause a born-again, baptized, full of the Holy Ghost saint to backslide and forsake God?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Thank you for the response! If you don't mind sticking with me, I have a few follow-up questions for you.

In making his preference and the rule known, do you believe the pastor has done anything to be held accountable for? If the member turns from God at this point, do you believe the pastor will be held accountable. It's hard to imagine the man was ready for ministry if such an innocuous statement of fact would cause his demise, right? (This is actually as far as my original question was intended to go, but since you provided much more detail, I'll roll with it.)

I agree on the question of readiness for ministry if one instance causes him to fall. On whether the Pastor would be accountable at this point, I don't believe so.

Originally Posted by Ehud

I would ask why the pastor went to meet with him again. In this part of the scenario, it would seem that the pastor has already overstepped a mere "enforcing of rules," and ventured over into meddling. I would be very interested to hear a pastor's rationale for claiming the man is in rebellion if the man simply declined to shave and wasn't pursuing any further ministry role.

I included this because I have read at least once, perhaps twice, that not following church standards is rebellion. I was blessed to be born and raised in a Pastor's home. I have been part of a few different church ministries and served under about six or seven Pastors throughout my life in various areas of the country. I have seen this kind of scenario play out before -- not this exact thing about beards, but where someone comes to the Pastor and then later on the Pastor follows up with the member. While I don't agree with the hypothetical Pastor's accusation at the end, I didn't write him as meddling, but just following up on their prior conversation. I envisioned the Pastor, over a few weeks, noticing the man hadn't shaved and wanting to speak with him about it. I will admit, likely the majority of Pastors would not go from a request in the first meeting to accusing the member of rebellion in the second meeting. But, I have served under a couple of Pastors who would do that and whom I have witnessed go from a request to accusation of rebellion when the suggestion wasn't followed.

This is why when I read the post about seasoned saints not following the church standards were in rebellion, I questioned it. People say they don't believe it's a heaven/hell issue when really they do. They just don't want to come right out and say it.

Originally Posted by Ehud

You will get no argument out of me that the pastor very well shouldn't have done this, but what is there to be held accountable for? At worst, shouldn't the man simply think the pastor is a wacko? What is it about this part of the scenario that would cause a born-again, baptized, full of the Holy Ghost saint to backslide and forsake God?

The man began full of hope and desire to be used. His hope was diminished when the Pastor relayed his personal preference and stated he could not be used unless and until he conformed (not to the Bible) to the Pastor's personal standard. He decides to continue because he really has no other place to go and he likes the church, including the Pastor with whom he disagrees over this one issue.

Then he's questioned by the Pastor and now learns that the Pastor believes since the man hasn't conformed to the Pastor's personal standard that he's in disobedience and rebellion. More diminished hope. More doubt. The devil works overtime and the man starts seeing other things with which he's unsatisfied. People gossiping, song volume is way too loud. Why can't the worship leader sing a song in a normal key range so everyone else can sing?

Then the Pastor, possibly without even thinking of that specific situation, preaches a red meat standards message and declares that if you don't follow the church standards, you're disobeying the man of God and in rebellion against God.

Yes, I believe the Pastor will have to present his account of what he did and why he did it before God.

[Apostolic1ness]

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves:

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by n david

...

One thing is for certain: I'm glad I have never encountered any of these ministers!

Thank you for the exchange, friend. I truly appreciate it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves:

First, I don't believe this is carte blanche authority for the Pastor to do whatever non-Biblical thing he wants. But let's pretend it is.

Are there any limits to this?

I know a non Apo/Pente church from early 2001 or 2002 who's Pastor required members to provide a W2 or paystubs to verify the correct amount of tithes were being given. The same Pastor had a list of members who were either not paying or under paying on the church bulletin board.

I served under a Pastor, for a short time, who wanted all church volunteers and leaders to submit their vacation plans to him. If the vacation was over a Sunday, the Pastor would tell them to change the dates to be home on Saturday. The same Pastor was gone often on weekends speaking and traveling to different churches. I gained a lot of experience leading service, preaching and tending to church business during his absences in the short time I was there.

So if a Pastor says men can't wear patterned or colored dress shirts on the platform, is that acceptable?

Is there a limit to this power?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by n david

Scenario:
A born again, baptized in Jesus Name and filled with the HG, bearded man desires to be used in church ministry. He has no personal conviction against facial hair and sees nothing in scripture which prohibit such. In fact, a review of Pentecostal history favors facial hair. So he goes to the Pastor with his desire to be used. The Pastor tells him he would love to let him minister on the platform, with just one condition: the man needs to shave his beard.

The man asks the Pastor for scripture and explanation and the Pastor says, I don't have Bible for it, it's just my preference. The man leaves the meeting discouraged and disappointed, but continues to attend church. The Pastor meets again with the man and asks why the man hasn't shaved. The man explains that since there is no scripture against facial hair and the man has no conviction against it, he will keep it. The Pastor then tells the man he is in rebellion. The man leaves even more discourage and even upset over being accused of rebellion.

After the meetings, the Pastor preached a message on standards and strongly pointed out that those who don't follow the standards set by the church are in rebellion against God.

The man is crushed and leaves that church.

Yes, that Pastor will give account before God.

Ministers love to point to Hebrews 13 and say, "you must obey the man of God!" But they forget they not only give account of those who have rejected Christ, but also will give account of any offense against a brother which has caused him to fall.

I agree...

This type of issue is why I included this in my study:

Any standard preached should help remedy a problem a local church body is facing, which ultimately means that its purpose is for those saints’ spiritual wellbeing. Thus, no leader standing in a pulpit has the license to impose a standard that is based on his own rules or on his own preferences. Let me be clear here—there are no Bible verses against a man wearing facial hair—none. So, if a church leader is going to set a standard against men wearing facial hair, he needs a valid reason for doing so. Without such a reason, that standard is the will of man, not the will of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Every single clothing company is celebrating pride month. You going to spin your own wool and cotton and make your own clothes? Either you're joining Aquila for nude breakfast, or your making your own clothes.

As usual, "Go Fish."

Hanes has nothing on their frontpage about celebrating sodomy. Happy Socks does, all over it.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Any standard preached should help remedy a problem a local church body is facing, which ultimately means that its purpose is for those saints’ spiritual wellbeing. Thus, no leader standing in a pulpit has the license to impose a standard that is based on his own rules or on his own preferences. Let me be clear here—there are no Bible verses against a man wearing facial hair—none. So, if a church leader is going to set a standard against men wearing facial hair, he needs a valid reason for doing so. Without such a reason, that standard is the will of man, not the will of God.

Good afternoon, Bro. Burk!

In your estimation, how much leeway should a minister be given when deciding what rules are "for those saints' spiritual well-being," and what constitutes "a valid reason?"

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Im guessing some folks were women as teenagers and kids and transitioned into becoming a man when they were able to grow a beard. Makes sense right?

The non-females are children, until they transition into manhood which is signified by the appearance of facial hair. So, women and children = no facial hair, men = beards.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Can you identify the Scriptures which teach the validity of "standards of the church" which are not found in Scripture? How are such standards decided upon? Where do they come from?

Also, can you explain the difference between "holiness" and "separation"?

Did this ever get answered? I can't seem to find it...